- Care home
Glenkindie Lodge Residential Care Home
Assessment report published 25 August 2026
Contents
Ratings
Our view of the service
We visited the site on 18 and 26 June 2026, and 6 July 2026. We reviewed evidence off site as part of the assessment, spoke with people, relatives and staff and had follow up contact with the provider before concluding the assessment on 17 July 2026.
This was a responsive assessment, following an increase of concerns being raised with us. We requested and reviewed further information in response to these concerns, from the provider, but were not assured that their actions mitigated risk to people.
The service is a residential care home, providing accommodation and personal care for up to 33 people. At the time of the assessment, they were caring for 29 people.
The provider had taken over the service in February 2025. They had implemented a home improvement plan and were working to this, however, they had not sought feedback from people or their relatives, or incorporated people’s experience and quality of life within this plan.
Some relatives and staff told us that they didn’t feel incidents or accidents were addressed appropriately to prevent recurrence and protect people from harm. Staff told us they weren’t confident speaking up, due to fear of repercussions.
We found that care plans other documentation relating to people was not person centred and did not reflect their needs, wishes and preferences. This was reflected in the day to day care we observed whilst at the service. Some staff told us that risk assessments and care plans were basic and did not contain a lot of detail.
The provider, leaders and managers did not have adequate oversight of the service, so had not identified practice concerns and other issues we found during our assessment. The provider did not focus of quality assurance and often was not adhering to their own policies and procedures.
We observed some positive, kind and caring interactions between staff and people, and interactions that promoted people’s independence. However, we also observed poor practice from some staff who were not always enabling people to have choice and control over their care.
The provider had recently appointed a consultant to support service improvement. They shared their plans with us to incorporate people’s views and feedback into the direction of the service; however, this had not begun at the time of our assessment.
During our assessment, there were interim managers and leaders in place.
We found that the provider was in breach of three legal regulations. These related to treating people with kindness, compassion and dignity, safe care and treatment and good governance. We have requested an action plan in relation to treating people with kindness, compassion and dignity.
In instances where CQC have decided to take civic or criminal enforcement action against a provider, we will publish this information on our website after any representations and/or appeals have been concluded.
People's experience of this service
Relatives and people told us that they are not involved in decisions about people’s care, and we were unable to find evidence that people were involved in risk assessments or care planning processes. One person told us, “I don’t think I’ve ever seen my care plans”, and when asked if they were involved in their care reviews, “no, I don’t think I’ve ever had one.”
People told us that they generally see the same staff, and most people felt staff were kind and caring. Relatives told us that the staff always seemed too busy and were unable to spend quality time with people. One relative told us, “They are lovely staff but rushed of a weekend, it takes 3-4 rings of the [call] bell.”
Most people told us they were not keen on the food, and we observed many people leaving most of their meals and citing that they didn’t like it.
The provider had begun to seek feedback from people in relation to this, in May 2026, and had started to implement changes, but this was not yet fully embedded.
We found that people were often bored, and some were following the same standard structure and routine to their day. Some people were left sitting at the dining tables, from breakfast all the way through to the end of lunch. One person told us, “Sometimes I’m here until I go to bed.”
The provider employed staff to provide activities for people throughout the day. People told us there wasn’t much variation or choice. One person told us, “The choice is, you join in or you don’t.”
Some relatives told us that people needed more stimulation than what was being provided.
Overall, people and relative’s feedback did not reflect person centred care, with a focus on choice, independence and quality of life.